everyone knows that the majority decision may not be “right” but it has to be accepted and those that lost need to be “reconciled” to the result and make the best of their life within the system.
For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out that in a multi-party parliamentary system, this is not strictly true. We do not have to accept the “majority decision” as to the ruling party. We only have to accept that the MPs form a government, usually along initial party lines (and if we dislike their party-changing or politicking too much, we don’t vote for them again!). For example, the current UK government is a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, which many people did not expect would make a viable team — but nothing was wrong with the Liberal Democrats teaming up with Labour and, say, Plaid Cymru (the Welsh national party) and the Scottish National Party (and whoever else they’d need) to form a coalition government. It would have been a lot of politicking, and we may have not liked it in the end — but it would have been legitimate. And if we very strongly dislike it, next time the Conservatives are bound to win a majority of seats!
In a parliamentary democracy, we don’t exactly accept the “majority decision” except at our own MP level. The rest is in the hands of politicians. The idea of “the majority” is, well, a bit of a dream. Sometimes dreams help us on. But sometimes facing the brutal political facts helps, too!
Who were black shirts (#34, part 2): Somsak, et al,
About 500 former tahaan phraan openly joined red shirts in udorn on 31 January 2010; one 73 year old named “Sgt Major First Class” Supot Muangkut interviewed claimed he was training red shirts to be guards, to manage the flow of human traffic and take care of the money collected. They did not use violence. He said the picture shown to him from media were Black shirt soldiers who looked professional. Now, a probably reason why Saedaeng was killed because he knew these former tahaan phraan as he had asked them if they wanted to join; so he could tell who they were.
Anupong went earlier to Pak Thong Chai to offer Baht five million (instead of Baht thirty million owed). They were not paid and the state forgot about them. Many had suffered during the communist times and no one paid any attention to them. In total there were around 900 tahaan Phraan divided into three groups: one ground joined ex-Korean veterans based in Bangkok; second group based in Khorat, and third group based in Ubon. All have to take loyalty oath to serve nation-king-religion. The former tahaan phraan would not have access to weapons. Not all former tahaan phraan joined Red Shirts; some joined PAD before (Tahaan Phraan was dissolved about five years ago). While Des Ball said they are “thugs for hire”- many actually were simple/patriotic rural folk who wanted to serve the king and nation. Since its disbandment it was up to the individuals as to what they wanted to do. Thus Saedaeng had to be killed because the state wanted to plant its own professional Black Shirts among the reds. So after Saedaeng died “black warriors” appeared; well trained, well armed and they did not hide from view. They presented to media as belonging to red shirts but were in fact professionals on government side. It is not hard to tell the former tahaan phraan for those of us who went to the protests from the pictures of the Black Warrior killers. If Saedaeg had not died he would have been able to differentiate tahaan phraan from professional militia sent by Abhisit to kill protestors.
1 month and 3 months with the coalition government as the interim government perhaps would have been as reasonable starting point (or even something reasonable to cave in to). But again, not even 1 month was the original demand. So why would we start an argument by saying that PM Ahbisit should have just given in to the original Red Shirt negotiator demands? That’s silly. Everyone knows that there was a critical situation created by mass protests. Bearing in mind what happened at Songkran last year, this rapidly turned into a crisis situation. Under such circumstances, if we want to increase political participation, political access, and democratic values, a snap dissolution and poll is not going to help much.
And the non-protesters are not going to be happy (and rightfully so) if, per chance, there were still a mass occupation of parts of the city while the government is promising to quit. That too is a “genuine grievance”. The prime minister could not give in to immediate or near-immediate dissolution.
I’m not sure what you mean by a “proper democratic society”, but my idea of democracy is not only voting, representation, and getting things done. It’s also getting even time and timeframes to help political participation to the core. Everyone knows the original Red Shirt offer did not do that (subsequent ones, perhaps, first ones, no). Everyone should be willing to have time on democracy’s side. Whatever we think of the need for/good of fresh elections, it does not help to begin an analysis by glossing the timeframe point and saying Abhisit could have just given in.
P.S. In the UK, where I live, parties have a general, year-round idea when an election will be called (i.e. a few weeks before the Queen’s speech). In Canada, where I’m from, in 2008, the Governor General (i.e. the Queen’s representative, the representative of the Head of State) refused snap polls because the political climate was still bad. This is what happens in the democracies I’ve lived in. I would expect the government of Thailand to behave as responsibly as the government of Canada if the political climate (and in this case, also the security climate) were not yet favourable. I would expect them to say, “wait a bit, we want this to work”. Whether that’s why they said “longer” is another matter. But I certainly don’t want anyone caving in to immediate or near-immediate elections in an extreme political climate.
I presumed most posting pro-Red posters were primarily Australians . . . like that Purcell guy who was arrested in Bangkok for inciting rebellion was in Bangkok.
I could not believe ‘educated’ Thais would be condoning the violent/arson rampage of the Red shirts . . . hence, I believed the ‘majority’ of Reds in ANU were non-Thais and could NOT vote.
I think my assumptions should be just about right.
The redshirt movement, as with most things in Thailand, cannot be summed up by broad sweeping statements or generalizations, such as, they are terrorists, or they are only there because they are paid, or they are only there because they want Thaksin back,or that they are entirely peaceful protesters. At any outbreak of political violence, I am thinking of my own experience here of protests in the UK, such as poll tax riots, various anti globalization rallies, their are sections of the crowd who are basically only there because of an opportunity to fight the police. I Am sure this is also true of the protests in Bangkok, some of those attending in April and May would only have been there because of an opportunity to shoot slingshots at the army, although this section may not have carefully though out political grievances, they are still suitably disaffected with society to risk their lives, in an outbreak of violent dissent.
You seem to be outlining that the core motivation of the body of people making up this protest movement was financial gain. That these people left their homes, farms, friends and families to move to Bangkok and sleep on the streets in 40 degree temperatures for a few hundred baht a day. Then after seeing many of their number on the 10th April murdered, they didn’t think to themselves, this is not worth the few hundred Baht, are these people so desperate that they would die for only enough money to support them for a few weeks. The people making up the protests, although mainly working class and farmers, they are not living in some kind of squalid desperate poverty, where the sight of a 1000 baht note would cause them to follow you around, like a dog following a sausage. You really do have a low opinion of the Thai people Les, if you truly believe that these last two months of protests were all about a rent a mob only there to make a few Baht.
In all your comments Les, you keep hammering away at the protest movement, and lets be honest its pretty easy to find faults in it, some of its leaders don’t come across very well and I think its fairly clear they did not have full control of their supporters. You seem to want a a perfectly ordered protest movement, completely non violent, all centered around the same core issue, with one shining light leader in the Martin Luther King mould who can bring all the people together under a banner of peaceful civil disobedience. Well this Thailand, and that is just not going to happen, what we have is a raggle taggle collection of different factions, ideas and people, some are there for money, some to cause to trouble but the overwhelming majority are there because they have had there elected governments stolen from them. At the moment they are Thailand’s best hope for taking power from the army/ network monarchy and putting it into the hands of the Thai people at the ballot box.
I dont think it is Thaksin-Peur Thai that control the redshirt movement
the trio Veera, Jatuporn and Nattawut are the ones the reds listen to and follow with Weng, Arisman, Seh Daeng, etc as also leaders
most reds respect Thaksin and see him as their hero that woke them up to their opportunities but these days he has been giving encouragement rather than instructions
in many respects the organisation is democratic, it tolerates considerable diversity but recognises the mechanism of decision by majority for moving forward
the yellows, military, etc find this hard to understand, they follow the “efficient, effective, autocratic” organisation style where differences of opinion cannot be tolerated, people, processes and actions cannot be criticised because their edifice might crumble
democracy is a mechanism for dealing with free speech and action and resolving this diversity with a decision by the majority hopefully when its needed
for example, in every democracy, the time of an election is a time of tension, those currently in power have to put themselves on the line and risk being thrown into the wilderness.
everyone knows that the majority decision may not be “right” but it has to be accepted and those that lost need to be “reconciled” to the result and make the best of their life within the system.
If they really want they can work to try to convince the “majority to vote for them next time.
Not sure Somsak is correct on “leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network”: it is far too diverse though they are all united in wanting to restore grassroots democracy.
Regarding the black shirts, this may help readers have a better understanding: (NM please get some of these RS youtube speeches translated for readers otherwise the story will forever be one-sided!)
Jatuporn speech on 13 May, the day SaeDaeng was murdered by state instrumentalities:
“(Deputy PM and chief manager of the violence) Suthep: you have 50 “siiwichai” thugs (i.e. PAD’s so-called “warriors”) wearing black similar to our own barricade guards and you have prepared police vans waiting so what are planning to do? Are you going to take photographs and claim that it is us doing something violent? Watermelon soldiers saw these people wearing black – just like our guards (many of whom) are ex-tahaan Phraan (р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕Щ; rangers, former counter insurgency trained unit from Pak Thong Chai: Des Ball is an authority on this militia).
So now soldiers & black dressed villains/guerrillas (р╣Вр╕Ир╕г) joined hands under the management of this government. I don’t their task, but uniforms/equipment is ready, vehicles ready, so what are you (govt) going to get up to now? If anything happens involving black shirt people then come and check the faces and see if they are the same as our guards. The second group of one 100 soldiers from regiment 11 are ready to act (against us). (And) observe closely the (planted) security guards at the shopping malls: They are likely to burn these places and then accuse the Red Shirts as justification for suppression of the protest movement. People ask me if I will reconcile with the govt. I have been hunted and attacked wherever I go…So ask the govt, not me…”
See: 2010 05 13@2241 RedMarch р╕Ир╕Хр╕╕р╕Юр╕гр╣Бр╕Ир╣Йр╕Зр╕Вр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ър╕ир╕гр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Фр╕│&р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓CTW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzRrJkyJJQ&feature=player_embedded
Not sure Somsak is correct on “leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network”: it is far too diverse though they are all unitred in wanting to restore grassroots democracy.
Regarding the black shirts, this may help readers have a better understanding: (NM please get some of these RS youtube speeches translated for readers otherwise the story will forever be one-sided!)
Jatuporn speech on 13 May, the day SaeDaeng was murdered by state instrumentalities:
“(Deputy PM and chief manager of the violence) Suthep: you have 50 “siiwichai” thugs (i.e. PAD’s so-called “warriors”) wearing black similar to our own barricade guards and you have prepared police vans waiting so what are planning to do? Are you going to take photographs and claim that it is us doing something violent? Watermelon soldiers saw these people wearing black – just like our guards (many of whom) are ex-tahaan Phraan (р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕Щ; rangers, former counter insurgency trained unit from Pak Thong Chai: Des Ball is an authority on this militia).
So now soldiers & black dressed villains/guerrillas (р╣Вр╕Ир╕г) joined hands under the management of this government. I don’t their task, but uniforms/equipment is ready, vehicles ready, so what are you (govt) going to get up to now? If anything happens involving black shirt people then come and check the faces and see if they are the same as our guards. The second group of one 100 soldiers from regiment 11 are ready to act (against us). (And) observe closely the (planted) security guards at the shopping malls: They are likely to burn these places and then accuse the Red Shirts as justification for suppression of the protest movement. People ask me if I will reconcile with the govt. I have been hunted and attacked wherever I go…So ask the govt, not me…”
See: 2010 05 13@2241 RedMarch р╕Ир╕Хр╕╕р╕Юр╕гр╣Бр╕Ир╣Йр╕Зр╕Вр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ър╕ир╕гр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Фр╕│&р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓CTW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzRrJkyJJQ&feature=player_embedded
“how can you really be certain that the man holding up the flag who apparently was the demonstrators’ first dead casualty on that night, was not really the result of ‘friendly fire”
I actually got the clip where they compared 2 events side by side, one from the protester side right at the moment the guy was shot, and another was the army side where you can hear the shooting, since post links will got filtered out decided not to put it here yet, anyway, the clip where the guy got shot and the military side shooting, you can hear the shot perfectly synchronized. Anyway, I was at Phan Fa during the 10th I got there around 8pm where some fight already broke out, and as Nick’s said in another post, the fight took place on various location, so I couldn’t confirm whether the MiB show up somewhere else, but I didn’t see any of them until very late in the fight around 10:45 where 2 – 3 of them appear near Phan Fa, while between 9:15 – 10:00 there were stream of injured carried out of soi adjacent the Phan Fa bridge, when after the MiB appear and disappearm the soldiers retreat and the fighting subsided.
The redshirts represent the mass movement of the Thai people, they are a secular movement that will remain until their needs are met. People will come and go claiming to be the “leaders” of this movement which, given the utterly corrupt nature of the Thai political class, is genuinely bereft of genuine leaders and is now, I hope, in the process of developing its own leadership, bottom up.
nice sentiment, but it’s just factually wrong. The Red Shirts are a mass movement alright, but they are still largely a movement mobilized and organized by (what I’d call) Thaksin-Phua Thai networks. Most of Reds came from the provinces, mobilized throught Phua-Thai MPs or local supporters (“р╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕Др╕░р╣Бр╕Щр╕Щ”). And the leadership is firmly in the hands of Thaksin-Phua Thai network.
The issue of armed M-i-B is ultimately connected with this problem. Or, to be more precise, with the ‘style of leadership’ of Thaksin himself (the style that is quite well-known among informed observers since the days of him being in government). Let me give one example. Remember during the early days of the rally, the UDD leaders came on stage to denounce Se Daeng and the so-called Red Siam? But Se Daeng never really went away. In fact, he still direct the manning of barricade of the rally. The most important example concerned another Red mistakes during this rally, the case of the ‘storming’ of Chula hospital. After the ‘storming’ the UDD leaders ordered the barricade removed, but it was quickly set up again. On whose order? None other than Se Daeng. Now if he was really cut off from the movement, how come he was still able to give order? The answer: because he had direct contact with Thaksin. And even if the UDD would want him go away, they wouldn’t be able to do it.
Another similar example, the case of the Red Siam. While the UDD stage denounced it, during the early stage of the rally, there was a ‘small stage’ set up in front of the UN building. Each night, Jakkraphob Penkae would ‘phone in’ to that stage, and there were speackers sympathatic to the Red Siam, speaking each night. At first the UDD ‘big stage’ ordered ‘guards’ to remove this ‘small stage’, but it stayed put. Why? Because Jakkraphob has direct link with Thaksin.
The point of the two cases is: Thaksin works this way. He has his key supporters competing among themselves (like a CEO has his executives competing) and he would keep them all, especially now that he’s in exile and would gladly accept all the help he can get.
Now, from what I can gather, the armed eleemnts (‘M-i-B’) were connected with Se Daeng, and men around him. Even if the UDD majority leaders would have liked – and this cannot be sure – to see him go, or even if they would have like to keep the rally really ‘non-violent’ – unarmed, they wouldn’t be able to chase away these elements.
But that the UDD leaders themselve knew of these armed elements and that they were part of the Red rally, cannot really be in doubt (pace Jim Taylor #27). Not only the Asia Time online report (quoted by Tettyan #16) or the Dan Rivers’ report the other day, confirms this. But during the course of the 2 moths rally, the Red Shirst Guards were able to catch (alledged) plaincloth gov agents almost weekly. They never managed to catch any of the ‘M-i-B’
The point is, leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network. But this ‘network’ itself is hetorogeneous, just like in the olf Thai Rak Thai Party’s days when there were different factions (р╕бр╕╕р╣Йр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З) working and competing for Thaksin.
The past 40 years (1970s-2010) have witnessed a mass movement, resulted in direct violent by the Thai military and the manipulation by the Thai network monarchy against democratization process. Thai people have never been free to define their own state, nation, and constitutional character in recent political history. The failures of power structure reform and constitutional reform have resulted in political violence and instability.
The centralism of power in the institution of the Thai monarchy where military’s loyalty is placed only to the king has made it impossible for Thailand to achieve democracy. It fact, it offers the possibility for the network monarchy to manipulate events behind the scene, hindering grassroots socio-economic and political progress. The events of 1973, 1976, 1992, 2010 offer rich and diverse lessons learned that the Thai network monarchy is, in fact, fear of democratization process. As a result, the use of violent means to install the status quo ante has never been hesitated; the absolute power in the use of force and decision-making can only be in the hands of the network monarchy.
Leading experts and scholars in the rule of law, conflict analysis and prevention, and constitutional reform, etc. need to address this underlying force. In my opinion, federalist principle of the Republic is the solution to Thailand’s instability in the south, the north, the northeast, and Bangkok. Until the existing power structure be reformed toward federalism, basic human rights will never be possible in Thailand.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
David Brown // Jun 8, 2010 at 5:10 pm
everyone knows that the majority decision may not be “right” but it has to be accepted and those that lost need to be “reconciled” to the result and make the best of their life within the system.
For the sake of clarity, I would like to point out that in a multi-party parliamentary system, this is not strictly true. We do not have to accept the “majority decision” as to the ruling party. We only have to accept that the MPs form a government, usually along initial party lines (and if we dislike their party-changing or politicking too much, we don’t vote for them again!). For example, the current UK government is a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, which many people did not expect would make a viable team — but nothing was wrong with the Liberal Democrats teaming up with Labour and, say, Plaid Cymru (the Welsh national party) and the Scottish National Party (and whoever else they’d need) to form a coalition government. It would have been a lot of politicking, and we may have not liked it in the end — but it would have been legitimate. And if we very strongly dislike it, next time the Conservatives are bound to win a majority of seats!
In a parliamentary democracy, we don’t exactly accept the “majority decision” except at our own MP level. The rest is in the hands of politicians. The idea of “the majority” is, well, a bit of a dream. Sometimes dreams help us on. But sometimes facing the brutal political facts helps, too!
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
[…] a blog post at New Mandala, the human rights activist Kwanravee Wangudom has published a response to an op/ed in the Bangkok […]
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Who were black shirts (#34, part 2): Somsak, et al,
About 500 former tahaan phraan openly joined red shirts in udorn on 31 January 2010; one 73 year old named “Sgt Major First Class” Supot Muangkut interviewed claimed he was training red shirts to be guards, to manage the flow of human traffic and take care of the money collected. They did not use violence. He said the picture shown to him from media were Black shirt soldiers who looked professional. Now, a probably reason why Saedaeng was killed because he knew these former tahaan phraan as he had asked them if they wanted to join; so he could tell who they were.
Anupong went earlier to Pak Thong Chai to offer Baht five million (instead of Baht thirty million owed). They were not paid and the state forgot about them. Many had suffered during the communist times and no one paid any attention to them. In total there were around 900 tahaan Phraan divided into three groups: one ground joined ex-Korean veterans based in Bangkok; second group based in Khorat, and third group based in Ubon. All have to take loyalty oath to serve nation-king-religion. The former tahaan phraan would not have access to weapons. Not all former tahaan phraan joined Red Shirts; some joined PAD before (Tahaan Phraan was dissolved about five years ago). While Des Ball said they are “thugs for hire”- many actually were simple/patriotic rural folk who wanted to serve the king and nation. Since its disbandment it was up to the individuals as to what they wanted to do. Thus Saedaeng had to be killed because the state wanted to plant its own professional Black Shirts among the reds. So after Saedaeng died “black warriors” appeared; well trained, well armed and they did not hide from view. They presented to media as belonging to red shirts but were in fact professionals on government side. It is not hard to tell the former tahaan phraan for those of us who went to the protests from the pictures of the Black Warrior killers. If Saedaeg had not died he would have been able to differentiate tahaan phraan from professional militia sent by Abhisit to kill protestors.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Tarrin // Jun 8, 2010 at 10:57 am
1 month and 3 months with the coalition government as the interim government perhaps would have been as reasonable starting point (or even something reasonable to cave in to). But again, not even 1 month was the original demand. So why would we start an argument by saying that PM Ahbisit should have just given in to the original Red Shirt negotiator demands? That’s silly. Everyone knows that there was a critical situation created by mass protests. Bearing in mind what happened at Songkran last year, this rapidly turned into a crisis situation. Under such circumstances, if we want to increase political participation, political access, and democratic values, a snap dissolution and poll is not going to help much.
And the non-protesters are not going to be happy (and rightfully so) if, per chance, there were still a mass occupation of parts of the city while the government is promising to quit. That too is a “genuine grievance”. The prime minister could not give in to immediate or near-immediate dissolution.
I’m not sure what you mean by a “proper democratic society”, but my idea of democracy is not only voting, representation, and getting things done. It’s also getting even time and timeframes to help political participation to the core. Everyone knows the original Red Shirt offer did not do that (subsequent ones, perhaps, first ones, no). Everyone should be willing to have time on democracy’s side. Whatever we think of the need for/good of fresh elections, it does not help to begin an analysis by glossing the timeframe point and saying Abhisit could have just given in.
P.S. In the UK, where I live, parties have a general, year-round idea when an election will be called (i.e. a few weeks before the Queen’s speech). In Canada, where I’m from, in 2008, the Governor General (i.e. the Queen’s representative, the representative of the Head of State) refused snap polls because the political climate was still bad. This is what happens in the democracies I’ve lived in. I would expect the government of Thailand to behave as responsibly as the government of Canada if the political climate (and in this case, also the security climate) were not yet favourable. I would expect them to say, “wait a bit, we want this to work”. Whether that’s why they said “longer” is another matter. But I certainly don’t want anyone caving in to immediate or near-immediate elections in an extreme political climate.
Abhisit’s human rights education
Good artist is Steff.
Reading other postings here I imagine this one by him won’t be appreciated as much.
Thailand in crisis – ANU video series
I presumed most posting pro-Red posters were primarily Australians . . . like that Purcell guy who was arrested in Bangkok for inciting rebellion was in Bangkok.
I could not believe ‘educated’ Thais would be condoning the violent/arson rampage of the Red shirts . . . hence, I believed the ‘majority’ of Reds in ANU were non-Thais and could NOT vote.
I think my assumptions should be just about right.
Thailand in crisis – Episode 2
Les Abbey
The redshirt movement, as with most things in Thailand, cannot be summed up by broad sweeping statements or generalizations, such as, they are terrorists, or they are only there because they are paid, or they are only there because they want Thaksin back,or that they are entirely peaceful protesters. At any outbreak of political violence, I am thinking of my own experience here of protests in the UK, such as poll tax riots, various anti globalization rallies, their are sections of the crowd who are basically only there because of an opportunity to fight the police. I Am sure this is also true of the protests in Bangkok, some of those attending in April and May would only have been there because of an opportunity to shoot slingshots at the army, although this section may not have carefully though out political grievances, they are still suitably disaffected with society to risk their lives, in an outbreak of violent dissent.
You seem to be outlining that the core motivation of the body of people making up this protest movement was financial gain. That these people left their homes, farms, friends and families to move to Bangkok and sleep on the streets in 40 degree temperatures for a few hundred baht a day. Then after seeing many of their number on the 10th April murdered, they didn’t think to themselves, this is not worth the few hundred Baht, are these people so desperate that they would die for only enough money to support them for a few weeks. The people making up the protests, although mainly working class and farmers, they are not living in some kind of squalid desperate poverty, where the sight of a 1000 baht note would cause them to follow you around, like a dog following a sausage. You really do have a low opinion of the Thai people Les, if you truly believe that these last two months of protests were all about a rent a mob only there to make a few Baht.
In all your comments Les, you keep hammering away at the protest movement, and lets be honest its pretty easy to find faults in it, some of its leaders don’t come across very well and I think its fairly clear they did not have full control of their supporters. You seem to want a a perfectly ordered protest movement, completely non violent, all centered around the same core issue, with one shining light leader in the Martin Luther King mould who can bring all the people together under a banner of peaceful civil disobedience. Well this Thailand, and that is just not going to happen, what we have is a raggle taggle collection of different factions, ideas and people, some are there for money, some to cause to trouble but the overwhelming majority are there because they have had there elected governments stolen from them. At the moment they are Thailand’s best hope for taking power from the army/ network monarchy and putting it into the hands of the Thai people at the ballot box.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
I dont think it is Thaksin-Peur Thai that control the redshirt movement
the trio Veera, Jatuporn and Nattawut are the ones the reds listen to and follow with Weng, Arisman, Seh Daeng, etc as also leaders
most reds respect Thaksin and see him as their hero that woke them up to their opportunities but these days he has been giving encouragement rather than instructions
in many respects the organisation is democratic, it tolerates considerable diversity but recognises the mechanism of decision by majority for moving forward
the yellows, military, etc find this hard to understand, they follow the “efficient, effective, autocratic” organisation style where differences of opinion cannot be tolerated, people, processes and actions cannot be criticised because their edifice might crumble
democracy is a mechanism for dealing with free speech and action and resolving this diversity with a decision by the majority hopefully when its needed
for example, in every democracy, the time of an election is a time of tension, those currently in power have to put themselves on the line and risk being thrown into the wilderness.
everyone knows that the majority decision may not be “right” but it has to be accepted and those that lost need to be “reconciled” to the result and make the best of their life within the system.
If they really want they can work to try to convince the “majority to vote for them next time.
Abhisit’s human rights education
hahahaha! The Korean Times knows the truth much more than Thai people who live in Thailand.
Thanong on King Bhumibol
Do you people still read Thanong? I thought most NM readers would have graduated from fairy tale class by now!
Abhisit’s human rights education
I think this originally came out in the Post or the Nation during the Rohingya affair……..
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Not sure Somsak is correct on “leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network”: it is far too diverse though they are all united in wanting to restore grassroots democracy.
Regarding the black shirts, this may help readers have a better understanding: (NM please get some of these RS youtube speeches translated for readers otherwise the story will forever be one-sided!)
Jatuporn speech on 13 May, the day SaeDaeng was murdered by state instrumentalities:
“(Deputy PM and chief manager of the violence) Suthep: you have 50 “siiwichai” thugs (i.e. PAD’s so-called “warriors”) wearing black similar to our own barricade guards and you have prepared police vans waiting so what are planning to do? Are you going to take photographs and claim that it is us doing something violent? Watermelon soldiers saw these people wearing black – just like our guards (many of whom) are ex-tahaan Phraan (р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕Щ; rangers, former counter insurgency trained unit from Pak Thong Chai: Des Ball is an authority on this militia).
So now soldiers & black dressed villains/guerrillas (р╣Вр╕Ир╕г) joined hands under the management of this government. I don’t their task, but uniforms/equipment is ready, vehicles ready, so what are you (govt) going to get up to now? If anything happens involving black shirt people then come and check the faces and see if they are the same as our guards. The second group of one 100 soldiers from regiment 11 are ready to act (against us). (And) observe closely the (planted) security guards at the shopping malls: They are likely to burn these places and then accuse the Red Shirts as justification for suppression of the protest movement. People ask me if I will reconcile with the govt. I have been hunted and attacked wherever I go…So ask the govt, not me…”
See: 2010 05 13@2241 RedMarch р╕Ир╕Хр╕╕р╕Юр╕гр╣Бр╕Ир╣Йр╕Зр╕Вр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ър╕ир╕гр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Фр╕│&р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓CTW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzRrJkyJJQ&feature=player_embedded
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Not sure Somsak is correct on “leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network”: it is far too diverse though they are all unitred in wanting to restore grassroots democracy.
Regarding the black shirts, this may help readers have a better understanding: (NM please get some of these RS youtube speeches translated for readers otherwise the story will forever be one-sided!)
Jatuporn speech on 13 May, the day SaeDaeng was murdered by state instrumentalities:
“(Deputy PM and chief manager of the violence) Suthep: you have 50 “siiwichai” thugs (i.e. PAD’s so-called “warriors”) wearing black similar to our own barricade guards and you have prepared police vans waiting so what are planning to do? Are you going to take photographs and claim that it is us doing something violent? Watermelon soldiers saw these people wearing black – just like our guards (many of whom) are ex-tahaan Phraan (р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕Щ; rangers, former counter insurgency trained unit from Pak Thong Chai: Des Ball is an authority on this militia).
So now soldiers & black dressed villains/guerrillas (р╣Вр╕Ир╕г) joined hands under the management of this government. I don’t their task, but uniforms/equipment is ready, vehicles ready, so what are you (govt) going to get up to now? If anything happens involving black shirt people then come and check the faces and see if they are the same as our guards. The second group of one 100 soldiers from regiment 11 are ready to act (against us). (And) observe closely the (planted) security guards at the shopping malls: They are likely to burn these places and then accuse the Red Shirts as justification for suppression of the protest movement. People ask me if I will reconcile with the govt. I have been hunted and attacked wherever I go…So ask the govt, not me…”
See: 2010 05 13@2241 RedMarch р╕Ир╕Хр╕╕р╕Юр╕гр╣Бр╕Ир╣Йр╕Зр╕Вр╣Ир╕▓р╕зр╕Щр╕▒р╕Бр╕гр╕Ър╕ир╕гр╕╡р╕зр╕┤р╕Кр╕▒р╕вр╕Кр╕╕р╕Фр╕Фр╕│&р╕Чр╕лр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕Хр╕гр╕╡р╕вр╕бр╣Ар╕Ьр╕▓CTW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djzRrJkyJJQ&feature=player_embedded
Abhisit’s human rights education
Surely the Korea Times means ethnic majorities?
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
Somsak Jeamteerasakul – 28
“how can you really be certain that the man holding up the flag who apparently was the demonstrators’ first dead casualty on that night, was not really the result of ‘friendly fire”
I actually got the clip where they compared 2 events side by side, one from the protester side right at the moment the guy was shot, and another was the army side where you can hear the shooting, since post links will got filtered out decided not to put it here yet, anyway, the clip where the guy got shot and the military side shooting, you can hear the shot perfectly synchronized. Anyway, I was at Phan Fa during the 10th I got there around 8pm where some fight already broke out, and as Nick’s said in another post, the fight took place on various location, so I couldn’t confirm whether the MiB show up somewhere else, but I didn’t see any of them until very late in the fight around 10:45 where 2 – 3 of them appear near Phan Fa, while between 9:15 – 10:00 there were stream of injured carried out of soi adjacent the Phan Fa bridge, when after the MiB appear and disappearm the soldiers retreat and the fighting subsided.
Question of the month: Burma and WMD?
Nuclear weapons? In Burma? You got to be joking. This sounds and smells worse than the WMD in Iraq!
After years of occupancy, the US and others have yet to find any WMD in Iraq. Think about that. I guess if the lie works, then why not repeat it.
The Western aid sector in Laos – days numbered?
[…] development debates are in the news — perhaps our discussion last week started […]
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
john fracis lee #26 writes:
The redshirts represent the mass movement of the Thai people, they are a secular movement that will remain until their needs are met. People will come and go claiming to be the “leaders” of this movement which, given the utterly corrupt nature of the Thai political class, is genuinely bereft of genuine leaders and is now, I hope, in the process of developing its own leadership, bottom up.
nice sentiment, but it’s just factually wrong. The Red Shirts are a mass movement alright, but they are still largely a movement mobilized and organized by (what I’d call) Thaksin-Phua Thai networks. Most of Reds came from the provinces, mobilized throught Phua-Thai MPs or local supporters (“р╕лр╕▒р╕зр╕Др╕░р╣Бр╕Щр╕Щ”). And the leadership is firmly in the hands of Thaksin-Phua Thai network.
The issue of armed M-i-B is ultimately connected with this problem. Or, to be more precise, with the ‘style of leadership’ of Thaksin himself (the style that is quite well-known among informed observers since the days of him being in government). Let me give one example. Remember during the early days of the rally, the UDD leaders came on stage to denounce Se Daeng and the so-called Red Siam? But Se Daeng never really went away. In fact, he still direct the manning of barricade of the rally. The most important example concerned another Red mistakes during this rally, the case of the ‘storming’ of Chula hospital. After the ‘storming’ the UDD leaders ordered the barricade removed, but it was quickly set up again. On whose order? None other than Se Daeng. Now if he was really cut off from the movement, how come he was still able to give order? The answer: because he had direct contact with Thaksin. And even if the UDD would want him go away, they wouldn’t be able to do it.
Another similar example, the case of the Red Siam. While the UDD stage denounced it, during the early stage of the rally, there was a ‘small stage’ set up in front of the UN building. Each night, Jakkraphob Penkae would ‘phone in’ to that stage, and there were speackers sympathatic to the Red Siam, speaking each night. At first the UDD ‘big stage’ ordered ‘guards’ to remove this ‘small stage’, but it stayed put. Why? Because Jakkraphob has direct link with Thaksin.
The point of the two cases is: Thaksin works this way. He has his key supporters competing among themselves (like a CEO has his executives competing) and he would keep them all, especially now that he’s in exile and would gladly accept all the help he can get.
Now, from what I can gather, the armed eleemnts (‘M-i-B’) were connected with Se Daeng, and men around him. Even if the UDD majority leaders would have liked – and this cannot be sure – to see him go, or even if they would have like to keep the rally really ‘non-violent’ – unarmed, they wouldn’t be able to chase away these elements.
But that the UDD leaders themselve knew of these armed elements and that they were part of the Red rally, cannot really be in doubt (pace Jim Taylor #27). Not only the Asia Time online report (quoted by Tettyan #16) or the Dan Rivers’ report the other day, confirms this. But during the course of the 2 moths rally, the Red Shirst Guards were able to catch (alledged) plaincloth gov agents almost weekly. They never managed to catch any of the ‘M-i-B’
The point is, leadership of the Reds is in the hands of the Thaksin-Phua Thai network. But this ‘network’ itself is hetorogeneous, just like in the olf Thai Rak Thai Party’s days when there were different factions (р╕бр╕╕р╣Йр╕Зр╕Бр╕▓р╕гр╣Ар╕бр╕╖р╕нр╕З) working and competing for Thaksin.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
The past 40 years (1970s-2010) have witnessed a mass movement, resulted in direct violent by the Thai military and the manipulation by the Thai network monarchy against democratization process. Thai people have never been free to define their own state, nation, and constitutional character in recent political history. The failures of power structure reform and constitutional reform have resulted in political violence and instability.
The centralism of power in the institution of the Thai monarchy where military’s loyalty is placed only to the king has made it impossible for Thailand to achieve democracy. It fact, it offers the possibility for the network monarchy to manipulate events behind the scene, hindering grassroots socio-economic and political progress. The events of 1973, 1976, 1992, 2010 offer rich and diverse lessons learned that the Thai network monarchy is, in fact, fear of democratization process. As a result, the use of violent means to install the status quo ante has never been hesitated; the absolute power in the use of force and decision-making can only be in the hands of the network monarchy.
Leading experts and scholars in the rule of law, conflict analysis and prevention, and constitutional reform, etc. need to address this underlying force. In my opinion, federalist principle of the Republic is the solution to Thailand’s instability in the south, the north, the northeast, and Bangkok. Until the existing power structure be reformed toward federalism, basic human rights will never be possible in Thailand.
Violating human rights? Yes, indeed!
[…] a blog post at New Mandala, the human rights activist Kwanravee Wangudom has published a response to an op/ed in the Bangkok […]